Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 27 February 2019

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index

Merge Proposal

Hi there!

Rembrandt research in Australia

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

I am researching a Rembrandt that may have been in the collection of Dr John Radcliffe 17th century inherited down to Dr J R Radcliffe 19th -20th century. Rembrandt was exhibited title Christ raising the daughter of Jarius in a major exhibition in Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum 1934 loaned by Dr JR Radciffe . I am attempting to link the two. Very difficult. Note The painting has been located in Australia with exhibition label,also no record of where the work is. I feel it was in the collection of Dr J Radcliffe as he did collect Rembrants work. For your interest. Regards Bryan Collie

Nikola Kicev

can you change my height in my bio :) 191 cm

Deletion review for 2018 UPSL Season

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2018 UPSL Season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Addition to list

Hi... Actress /Model Carmen Electra is From Ohio

👍

Renewing one of the by-philosophy discussions

Hello, please see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 30 for Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians. The discussion focuses on whether a category is warranted for a small number of uses; it's not questioning the idea of having a category for this concept. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Misplaced Pages turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Misplaced Pages articles; are Misplaced Pages researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

Category: People of Celtic descent

Thanks for the ping - I did not have the category on my watchlist so would have been unlikely to see the discussion. I don't know if you recall Brough87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was topic-banned from this area a while ago. I don't have much time to spare for Misplaced Pages at the moment, as I am dealing with a family bereavement. If you see something you think I should know about then could you drop me a message on my talk page? That sends me an email so I can take a look when I can. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Duncan

I'm v sorry to hera of your loss. Hope you all find some peace in the goodbyes.

Sure, I'll keepo an eye out, and try to notify you.

BUt don't worry too much about en.wp at the moment. You got more important things tight now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I restored a lot more subcats the nominator had removed. I also added the CfD template to the category page, which he had forgotten to do. DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Category:People of Celtic Descent

I have nominated this for deletion here -https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_31#Category:People_of_Celtic_descent - and intend to propose all related categories for deletion such as the one you created, Category:South Korean people of Celtic descent. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please add your thoughts. I remain puzzled by the need to create such bizzare categories, and as neither you nor DuncanHill have seen fit to explain why my deletions were reverted (or at least use it appropriately for Iron Age folk), I feel this is the only course left. Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Botswana

I noticed you declined the speedy deletion of Template:WikiProject Botswana as it assists editors in tagging. If that is the case, could the deprecation notice be removed? Deprecation means that the code should not be used and is scheduled for deletion in a future date. --Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: This should probably apply to all the African country wikiproject Templates. Per it was decided that they should not be deleted, but they should all be marked as subst only.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Just checking if I missed something, does subst also mean deprecated? --Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: no, it's a different thing. Subst-only just means that the template shouldn't be trandcluded directly on to a page, it should be placed with "subst:" so that the content of the template is saved rather than the template itself. That means a "what links here" will have no pages listed. It can still be a useful template to have available to editors though, which is why it's not deprecated. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, just what I thought. I'll remove the deprecation template on it then. Thanks for the info. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: should the US templates at Category:Deprecated templates from September 2011 also be subst and not deprecated? --Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You Got Mail

Liz 04:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Publishing The Thames British School Warsaw Article

Hello BrownHairedGirl!

The reason I'm getting in touch with you is really just to make a very kind request...

I noticed that you had recently edited the British School Warsaw article and was just wondering if you could help to publish the article on Thames British School Warsaw. I'd greatly appreciate any help you can offer.

Also, I noticed on your profile page that you might be owned by one or more dogs. I really hope that they are lenient masters. :)

All the best,

Praevalebit

Game to help a college class that is learning to write for a Wikiproject?

Hey, BrownHairedGirl,

I am teaching a course at Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana, USA that is teaching students how to write Misplaced Pages Articles for a WikiProject. You made an edit on one of them and I was wondering if you would like to collaborate so that we could get it right.

What we are looking for is someone who is willing to let people make mistakes and give them a shot to correct them in Draft so that they learn. Is this something with which you would be willing to assist with what time you might have available? Please.

Thanks, mkurowski Mkurowski (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mkurowski

There's a lot of leeway on draft articles.

Which article are you referring to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Not me, Gov

Thanks for the "better to use a category which actually exists" reminder at Template:Template rating/doc, BHG. But the category was already there before I touched the page --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, RexxS. Seems I misread the diffs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Stranger Things (television series)

Just wondering if there was a reason as to why Category:Stranger Things (television series) couldn't be at Category:Stranger Things? Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: because that title is ambiguous: see Stranger Things (disambiguation).

The TV series may be the WP:Primary topic (tho I haven't checked), but categories are better unambiguous, to avoid miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. It is the primary topic, existing at the primary name for the topic. However, in this case, the category would better be situated at Category:Stranger Things (TV series), to comply with WP:NCTV. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: thanks for that pointer. I meant to check the convention, but forgot.

I have now listed it at WP:CFDW for speedy renaming per WP:C2E, and the bots should rename it shortly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No problems, thanks. All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Singlechart usages for Germany22 has been nominated for discussion

Category:Singlechart usages for Germany22, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Languages of the Republic of Macedonia

Hello! You protected Languages of the Republic of Macedonia and maybe you are right. The North Macedonian language should not have been changed indeed. But the article should definitely be Languages of North Macedonia as should the "Republic of Macedonia" elements be replaced. thx! --APG1984 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of renaming and moving of articles and categories regarding Macedonia right now. Liz 01:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the main article move to North Macedonia see that talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Liz, Legacypac, and APG1984: I have unprotect the page.

Please see my comments at WP:Requests for page protection#Languages_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia (permalink) about the need for less haste and more consensus-building here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A request

Could you please close this AFD? I mistakenly started it. He does pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia CFD

Hi BrownHairedGirl. You might consider adding some of the below categories. It looks like I was reverting the moves while you were building your nomination.

Apologies for any inconvenience. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @JJMC89 I would add the 8 categories which include "Republic of Macedonia" in their title. However, sadly the CFD has been prematurely closed by non-admin @MattLongCT (see discussion below and at User talk:MattLongCT#CfD_Macedonia).

Would you be kind enough to revert that WP:BADNAC, and reopen the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was reopened. Would you like to add the 8 categories or would you like me to? — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89. I have added the 8 cats to the CFD, and tagged them.

Thanks again for spotting them, and for notifying me. It took me a few hours to build the list (because the category tree is heavily polluted), so I'd have missed them otherwise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A huge CFD is silly anyway. Just let editors fix things and only discuss the thibgs that turn out to be controversial. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. @Legacypac, do read WP:MULTI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North Macedonia

Ummmm.... This is awkward to say, but a bunch of us just finished working on Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC... and I don't necessarily think editors should be having two North Macedonia-related discussions at once. I apologize for saying this, but I feel that an early closure of your nomination is necessary. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 04:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't hate me. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 04:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but closed the WP:CfD just now. I really hope you don't hate me especially because I really admire you as an editor. I just don't think two unconnected Macedonia-related discussions is appropriate, and a lot of people worked really hard on that RfC. You were addressing a lot of the same issues as that one, and if we had divergent consensuses that would be really bad. I am very sorry, but I am doing this for the right reasons, I think. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 05:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• @MattLongCT, I agree with the comments on your talk page by @Marcocapelle and @Oculi. This was an inappropriate non-admin closure (see WP:BADNAC#2), because it is a controversial closure.

The article name of the country has already been agreed at Talk:North Macedonia#Requested_move_8_February_2019, where the closer @MSGJ noted an overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article.

The adjectival forms are indeed being discussed at the RFC, but they have been explicitly excluded from the CFD. So the CFD and RFC can run in parallel. Please revert your closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

PS See also WP:NAC#Other_deletion_discussions: "In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question".

So far as I am aware, you don't have that extraordinary experience of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 16:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Another request

Could you please have a word with Editor Doprendek who likes to make lots of new establishment category pages? Almost always when creating a establishment category, like here and here, he puts the new category in both a parent and one of its subcategories. This isn't a couple of times occurence but a regular pattern.

I've tried asking this editor myself and a few other occasions and been ignored. Could you have a word with them. They are still overcategorizing. Here and here for two recent examples. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Clothing companies

Rather than reflexively follow the "advice" of the roof?, who has been tracking and harrassing me personally for years (there are periods of dormancy, this person is nothing if not patient in attacks), and who is well aware of the discussion around this issue, can you instead look at the actual structure of the Misplaced Pages category at you have chosen to revert only me for--see Category:Clothing companies established in 1958, Category:Clothing companies established in 1959, Category:Clothing companies established in 1960, Category:Clothing companies established in 1961, Category:Clothing companies established in 1962, Category:Clothing companies established in 1964, Category:Clothing companies established in 1965, Category:Clothing companies established in 1966, etc., all of which have existed for years and which you and the roof? have made no previous attempt to change, discuss, etc. As I have made clear to him, before giving up, I am willing to enter any good faith discussion on the editing of Misplaced Pages categories, but it must be clear that the point is to improve the structure of Misplaced Pages, not carry out personal grudges that in fact add irregularities and inconsistencies to the actual existing category structure. But your "discussion" with me at consisted of reverting me and pointing to a stricture that you are clearly not applying to others, in exactly analogous articles. Thus I assume the worst. Doprendek (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the above is not a tu quoque argument. By singling out one category year (1963) to differ from the ones directly preceding and following it is to break the logical structure of the existing categories. Any application of a rule such as WP:SUBCAT must be weighed against producing such inconsistencies. And there should presumably be discussion and a plan in place to address the subsequent inconsistencies in existing categories if the change is put forward. This is not a trivial operation. It deserves discussion and a plan of action, not cherry-picking me as some miscreant who needs personal attention. Doprendek (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please consider what a good faith reversion per WP:SUBCAT of these categories might look like. Many of these "Clothing companies established in year XXXX" categories were created by user User:Look2See1. (Please note: No criticism implied. Thanks for your work, User:Look2See1!) So if one was, in good faith, trying to correct subcat errors, one might notify this user as well as me for a discussion. In fact, a general discussion of this--how does one systematically change subcategorization issues across horizontally-organized categories such as "in year XXXX"? and how does one do it?--IMO needs to be done, but hasn't been. Then, one could presumably come to a conclusion and divide the labor to make the changes. Or, one might WP:BEBOLD and just go ahead and change the whole category one by one by oneself, although this is very labor intensive, as someone who has done such work before can attest. But it should be clear that what one would NOT do--if one was actually interested in solving a subcategorization problem, rather than targeting a particular user--is single out only one of the horizontally-organized categories for change and leave the others directly adjacent (presumably equally incorrect) intact, which actually WORSENS the existing situation. Doprendek (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who is taking it personal and taking the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS approach rather than still adding shit to category pages when you know its wrong. I have been cleaning up behind Look2See- who got indefinitely blocked for the messes he was creating- and Hugo999 not just you. I didn't cherry pick. You are refusing to stop this bullshit so I came here because nothing else (Multiple messages on your talk page) was working....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Doprendek a little more WP:AGF would help a lot. As would less verbosity, and more focus on the substantive issues. (BTW, I have changed the heading of this discussion to a more descriptive and less accusatory title)

I know that @WilliamJE can be an acquired taste, but that doesn't mean he is wrong; best to evaluate his comments on their merits. And User:Look2See1 has been indef-blocked since 2017 for repeated disruption, so we can ignore that editor.

So, to the substance.

Why do you think that it is insufficient for clothing companies to be categorised under both manufacturing and design? Why do you think that they also need to be in the undifferentiated parent cat "companies"?

Or is your objection simply about consistency, that that they should all be either included in the parent or all removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

He never did reply to you. Not surprisingly, because there is no logical explanation for his edits. Just personal attacks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your fork

About Special:Diff/883889340 - redirecting like that means that anyone who imported the script tries to run #REDIRECT ] as javascript code. See User:DannyS712 test/menu2.js for a working example of redirecting both the page and the javascript. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @DannyS712. I learnt the hard way that it broke, so the next edit changed it to importScript( 'User:DannyS712/Draft no cat.js' ) , which works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Critics of transhumanism has been nominated for discussion

Category:Critics of transhumanism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: ] Geofocus: ] Continuing initiatives: ] ]
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: ] Join the conversations on our ] Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: ] ] ] --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sindbad edits.

Hello I noticed that you have reversed my edits but in so doing the page is inaccurate. I have corrected information that is wrong. So why have you put the errors back. Please reinstate my correction so that the Wiki page is accurate. Thanks, Paul R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaboi1956 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mediaboi1956: are you referring

1. to this edit, which I reverted in this edit? ... or
2. to these edits, which were reverted by User:Dl2000? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How To Make Edits That Are Acceptable

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

Can you please give instruction on making the edits that we tried to make to Glenn Hetrick's Wiki page?

We're not trying to do anything wrong, libelous, or against Wiki rules...

The images of Mr. Hetrick are old; we wanted to take them out and put in his image as the host of SyFy's FaceOff! which he was for years.

All the changes were at his request, I'm one of the personal assistants.

How can we update his bio? Do you need authorization from him?

What are considered reliable sources? I tried my best and had no clue I was using what Wiki considers "unreliable" sources.

IS it possible to have you reply also in my personal email? Wiki is very awkward for me and honestly hard to figure out.

Is it possible to forward the changes he wants to you? Can you enter them properly on his behalf?

serenascholl888@gmail.com

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwunderkind (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Wikiwunderkind

Sorry to use numbered points, but I think it's clearest:

1. I keep discussion about Misplaced Pages articles public on Misplaced Pages, so I won't be emailing you.
2. Misplaced Pages articles must use relaible sources. You didn't; your edits used unreliable sources including Misplaced Pages and IMDB
3. Since you say that All the changes were at his request, I'm one of the personal assistant, you have a Conflict of Interest, and therefore you should not edit the page See WP:Conflict of Interest

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

PS I see that I had already left a note on you talk page about the Conflict of Interest. Please read it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHariedGirl,

I gave my email address because there's a bug red bar across the notes from you that say indicate you'll be answering on the talk page unless we give another way to answer --- not because I want to take the talk off this page.

I was hoping for a more human response however, and one that would actually help.

I don't understand 9% of what you sent out to me. It might as well be in Greek. And navigating through this site is really unfathomable. It's just not understandable or intuitive.

I do get it that someone linked to Mr. Hetrick is not "allowed" to make edits... So WHO IS?

Can I replace the old version of the Wiki page before I made edits? (I kept a copy of the code version) so that at least we know that version is acceptable to you/Wiki?

Instead of reams of Wiki rules, is there anyone in the Wiki Admin world who can help with making legit updates to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwunderkind (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Wikiwunderkind.

I'll try to explain this very simply.

1. Misplaced Pages is is an encyclopedia. This is, a reference work which summarises knowledge published elsewhere by reliable sources
2. Misplaced Pages is not a promotional device. If anyone wants to promote Hetrick online, they can set up a blog or website, or use social media or buy advertising. Misplaced Pages is not a free advertising service
3. Misplaced Pages has a policy of neutrality. So an article should not edited by anyone with a conflict of interest. That means that someone linked to Mr. Hetrick is not "allowed" to make edits on to articles about him.
4. You or Mr Hetrick or anyone else is free to edit Talk:Glenn Hetrick to request edits to the page
5. To request edits, follow the instructions at Template:Request edit.
6. Note that any changes will rejected unless they are sourced to independent, reliable sources. So, for example, a scholarly book or a newspaper article is appropriate; a blog or a press release or a company website is not suitable.
7. Your requested edit will be reviewed by independent editors, who will decide whether the change improves Misplaced Pages.
8. The previous edits which you made contained copyright violations, so have been removed.
9. All other versions of the article remain in the article's history ... but you need not worry about that, because you won't be editing the article.

Please remember that Misplaced Pages is run entirely by volunteers. I have volunteered as much help to you as am willing to give. If you would like further assistance, please ask at the Misplaced Pages:Teahouse, which is set up to help new editors.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Module:See also if exists

Module:See also if exists has been nominated for merging with Module:Category see also if exists. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. @Pppery it would be great if you could divert your energies to adding functionality, instead of these ill-conceived merge proposals. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Irish problem...

I agree - it's similar to why we disambiguate football teams by 'women' but not 'men' (with certain exceptions, such as USA) - because they are clear primary topics/no ambiguity. GiantSnowman 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

You became involved in a bit of drama recently, as did I. I do not wish to grave dance, nor rehash the controversy, so I will refrain from naming names or specifics. Regardless, it was important that an editor of your magnitude stood up for the idea of civility. Too often, we're forced to choose between respecting serious but uncivil content contributors and respecting the ideal of civility itself. You demonstrate an exemplary stance that the two sides are not irreconcilable. You stood up for what was right in the face of controversy. Additionally, while you technically were in the right in terms of policy, you demonstrated that you were able to accept criticism that you likely didn't agree with, and overturn your own administrative action. This demonstrates wisdom, restraint, and a balanced temperament, which are important qualities in an administrator. So, in sum, I just want to recognize you for both your assertiveness in standing up for what's right, and your restraint in not unnecessarily escalating an already-heated situation. Best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Swarm

Sorry for a slow reply, but thank you very very much for your kind words and for the barnstar.

Sadly, the policy of civility is too often treated more as a forlorn prayer than as actual policy, and this was one of those occasions. But from time to time I do try to do a wee bit about it.

As I expected, one of the miscreant's friends took me to ANI over it, and intends to proceed to arbcom. Hey ho; it goes wth the territory. And that territory was mapped out brilliantly over 3 years ago in an op-ed at the signpost. That piece is mostly about sexual harassment, but there is one sentence fragment which neatly encompasses the problem which recurs time and again: "a swaggering atmosphere of faux-intellectual machismo, and they think it's their due as macho content creators to drive their enemies before them and hear the lamentation of women editors."

I wish we had made some progress since 2015, but I'm not seeing much sign of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I was impressed by what you wrote at AN and that I take your remarks very seriously. I will think much more about your words in the days to come. An interesting (to me) footnote to the incident is that I originally intended to block for 72 hours and had already typed up my block notification (which is not my usual practice). Before blocking, I decided to review the editor's block log, and was surprised to discover that it was quite short for such an aggressive editor with well known civility problems. At that moment, I relented a bit and selected 31 hours instead. I discussed this on my talk page with another editor the other day. Perhaps this indicates that I am a coward or a wimp. On the other hand, there are plenty of other administrators who could have acted while I was working that day, but didn't. You indicated that all this crazy aggressive behavior might be fodder for sociological research, and I agree. But I am an old construction worker, not a young sociologist. I operate pragmatically, by the seat of my pants, trying to do the right thing, as each incident crops up. Thanks again for the clarity with which you explained your thinking. I appreciate it. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks v much for that, Cullen328. My ANI response is how I see this incident in the context of a wider problem, and it's good to know that it made some sense.

I certainly don't think you are a coward or wimp. Quite the contrary; you did the really important thing of actually blocking them, when others prevaricated. That was the single most important step in the whole thing, and I am very glad you did it.

I don't think that length of that initial block was much of an issue. What matters is that there was any block, rather that yet more debate with the enablers. Looking at now, with all the benefit of time to reflect and the 20-20 vision hindsight, I think that the ideal block was in the range from more than 24 hours (to indicate that this was more than a std block), but no more than 7 days (because this was the first block in this episode).

To my mind, the point of that block was to make it abundantly clear that this editor needed to make a clean break by backing off hard from this conduct, and that what mattered most was their response to it. The ideal response would have been along the lines of "sorry, I deserved that; will sit out the block", and I would have hoped for at least an unblock request which expressed some sort of acknowledgement that the conduct was out of order, or an indication that there would no be repetition of the outburst.

In this case the user spectacularly failed that test, and it all went the way it went.

So please don't put yourself down. You were the admin who made a good call when it was needed, and that's a crucial talent in an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia

We are in the process of moving all Macedonia categories to North Macedonia. Please see Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion#Current_requests. When you alter templates it makes the moves all the more difficult. I shall revert Template:User in North Macedonia. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You have just proposed that they be moved. The requests remain open for 48 hours to see if there are any objections.

Please wait until the processing starts before you alter the templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The templates are what populate the categories.  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, @Buaidh. That is precisely why I asked you to wait.

If you change templates before the 48 hours are up, the templates populate non-existent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, if people alter templates when they move categories, it causes me no end of headaches. I coordinate 6,825 regional user templates which populate about 1800 user categories. I am 70-years-old and I have a fatal blood cancer. I am anxious to get these regional user templates and categories straightened out before I go. Thank you for your understanding. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh, one of the consequences of creating such a huge and complex nest of interlinked templates is that maintenance becomes near-impossible for anyone else. It looks to me very like a closed platform (aka "walled garden").

The fact that you don't trust the experienced admins who process WP:CFDS to modify it accurately in the case of a simple country renaming seems to me to be confirmation of that. Admins such as @Fayenatic london, Ymblanter, Black Falcon, and Tim! and myself who regularly process that page are some of en.wp's most experienced admins in the intersection of categories and templates, and if we can't be relied upon to do this accurately, then the fault is in the structure.

Countries being renamed, achieving independence, or united with a neighbour is something which happens nearly every year. Over the last three decades, we have had a flurry of such changes in the former Yugoslavia, in central Europe, in the horn of Africa, and in the Caribbean, plus the renaming of Myanmar and of some African countries (e.g. Zaire, Swaziland). The next few decades will likely see some of the following: the breakup of the United Kingdom, further changes in Caribbean and in Africa, new states in the Caucasus, the Czech Republic being more widely known as Czechia ... and plenty more which I haven't considered.

So this needs ongoing maintenance. The list of countries has never been a static set.

If there is to be any chance that nest of templates and categories will stand any chance of being maintained when you are no longer around, then it needs to be both radically simplified and heavily documented. Otherwise it will become such a drain on editors' time and energies that it will have to be dismantled one way or another (probably by some combination of substing the templates and deleting many of the over-nested categories).

In the meantime, while you are maintaining this walled garden, please please please try to keep changes synchronised, to avoid cluttering Special:WantedCategories and its analogues with mismatches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of my current activity is to enhance documentation so these templates and categories can be maintained more easily. These templates and categories are intended to encourage participation of users, particularly users in small and non-English-speaking countries. What may appear to be a nest is actually the use of common parameter and documentation elements for each country or region. Changing one of these files changes all dependent templates simultaneously. I've been coding professionally for 48 years, so I do know a wee about maintenance. Yours aye,  Buaidh  (GreyHairedLad) talk contribs 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I do find it ironic that with BREXIT, Ireland will become the last English-speaking EU member state.  Buaidh  talk contribs 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Brexit is bringing a wealth of ironies for many.

Look, I know that you are skilled at coding. But remember, this is a Wiki, which is supposed to be easy to edit. Most editors and admins are not professional coders, so the more complex and interdependent you make the code, the less likely that it will be maintainable. It seems to me that what you are creating is a structure which would be fine in a professional coding environment, but en.wp is not a professional coding environment ... and as you acknowledge above it is not maintainable by the editors who actually need to maintain it.

I remain unpersuaded that these categories and userboxes have any meaningful impact on participation. In the course of admin work, I visit a lot of userpages, and AFAICS userboxes are a form of decoration which some users enjoy ... but in my experience there is a some sort of roughly inverse correlation between the number of userboxes and substantive content creation.

I have no desire to interfere with what editors do with their userpages, but if that decorative stuff imposes maintenance headaches on others, then we have a problem which will likely be resolved by simplifying the maintenance issues.

The common parameter and documentation elements thing is fine in theory, but in practice it only works if editors who need to make changes can quickly and easily find what changes are needed. On a wiki, most changes are handled simply by editing the pages directly. It works because nearly anyone can fix it easily, and while more edits may be required, the result is achieved quicker than reading piles of docs. That's why the wiki-coded category system works anyone can easily fix it.

You have created a structure in which that is not possible, and where as you have acknowledged, the editors who usually handle these issues can't figure it out. For example, the wiki approach is that it should be possible to handle the name change of these categories simply by editing the category pages. The fact that doesn't work is a major design flaw which will be rectified some day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is easy to edit and easy to corrupt. What I have created can be easily maintained and modified by any user. Some of my projects have survived unmodified for 28 years, and some were only designed for a few weeks. I have no desire for a lasting legacy, only short-term utility. Here today, gone tommorow.  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, @Buaidh, but I think you identified the problem correctly the first time when you wrote if people alter templates when they move categories, it causes me no end of headache. This system is maintainable only by you.

Today, those Macedonia categories were renamed. It too me >20 minutes to figure out what changes were needed where, which is ridiculous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You corrupted Template:User in North Macedonia, but I fixed it. Hopefully you will not encounter this problem again, but if you do, just ping me please.  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh, thanks for your fix.

But the nature of the fix reinforces my point that this whole thing is ridiculously complex, and a maintenance nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I try to fix anything that I've worked on in the past ten years.

I don't want to take more of your time, but all of these 6,825 regional user templates can be deleted and we can just notify linked users to link directly to their regional user categories. This is not article namespace. It is not that important. The only reason I took on this project is because I was tired of being bullied in article namespace. Misplaced Pages is terribly ageist. I wish I'd told everyone that I'm 19. Anyway, best of luck to you and I'll see you around the campfire.  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Category|Controlled lakes

Greetings User:BrownHairedGirl. I know you are a very busy and topnotch Wikipedian and administrator, but how about a ping first on something like this? The fact is, that category got entered by error, in brief conflation with the Control Lakes listing at the {{NYCwater}} template, which left me thinking (in error) that the category already existed. If you look at my last 50 edits or so you will see that I just created the page Controlled lake and am deep in the process of improving it and linking it with other relevant pages (as well as making material edits, adding citations, and categories to such pages as I arrive at them). I was getting back to the Category|Controlled lakes as fast as I could, not just thoughtlessly spreading red ink around. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikiuser100

I did ping you!

However, I was working off the latest update of my list of redlinked cats, and had forgotten that having whittled down the 100 other entries which were there earlier today, the latest update was mostly going to be v recent edits. Looking at the page history, it seems I jumped way too quickly (only one minute after your last edit). I should have left it for longer; sorry about that.

I hope that my edit summary didn't come across as sarky. I have taken to trying to be more informative in edit summaries, so that's one of my new std summaries for these cases. I used to just write "category does not exist (see WP:REDNOT)", but that seemed a bit terse. Maybe the terse form is better? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant ping me before ;) , a little heads up like "Did you mean to create this category? If not, I'm going to delete it." But I suppose that would take a bot to keep you from slowing down, then you'd get gummed up most the time waiting for someone to reply that may or may not get right back to you, ending up with an extra To-do list for you of categories you're holding off deleting awaiting word from the front. Or not.

Not so workable, I see now.

As for your edit summaries, the 2nd actually is much more helpful, even if may rub the over-sensitive user the wrong way a bit. It's more informative, and provides a better roadmap for the pingee to potentially follow.

I confess to a possible touch of such over-sensitivity on two grounds: one, in general, I am a very good and well-informed editor, with (shockingly, to me, anyway) a resume of writing for publication in one form or another over some six decades; in a single scant year seven. Consequently, I tend to get riled when other less thoughtful editors than yourself take their shoes off and tap out (something very close to) "I reverted Wikiuser100 because theyr a moran and deserve to be publically dumped on". (And because I can, I am.)

I'm not so crazy about having my username bandied so in edit summaries for others to see and think, "Gee, maybe he are right?" Or even, "Perhaps he's correct? I'm going to keep my eyes open for that guy." It didn't take you a million edits to run into or experience that.

And, two, it seems way too much of the last couple of days has been spent fending off reverts by users gifted with unnatural opacity of expression, blind obsession with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, stubbornness, cussedness, both, or pick any three out of four. It gets tedious. I apologize for snapping back. I saw a red ping and I wasn't a very good Pavlov's doggy. Keep up the good work. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification

Please see WP:AN#Review of re-block, where I comment on a block that you made. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I stumbled over this after it had fortunately blown over at AN, and I'm not about to spend time forensically analyzing precisely who said what in a sorry episode. Nevertheless, I thought it worthwhile to drop you a note of thanks for your intervention, for your cogent explanation at AN, for deferring to apparent consensus by unblocking, and for standing up to attempted bullying in the aftermath. All too often, the actual working atmosphere at en:wp is remarkably at odds with our Civility pillar. You point to this as an important obstacle in being more welcoming to women. This is doubtless true, but it's worth stating for the record that it's not just women who are put off. I'm a (as it happens, male) genuine expert in one field and fairly knowledgeable in a few others, who happily contributes my professional expertise in several collaborative online communities, but stays on the fringes at Misplaced Pages for these and related issues. From discussions with peers, I know I'm not alone. Your approach, while somewhat controversial, is very defensible (with reference to wikipedia's pillars and values) and worth trying. Martinp (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Martinp.

Standing up to the enablers can feel a bit lonely sometimes, so support is very welcome.

You're right to point out that it's not only women who are put off by the aggression of big beasts. There are so many ways in which this sort of thing has negative impacts, and it's very sad to see how much talent is not available to en.wp because of these antics.

I'm glad that you have niches which work for you, but it is v sad that Misplaced Pages is not a place where you feel comfortable sharing your talents. I wish I could say that I see signs of improvement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing

Hii, I recently edited a page in which I add refrences but you removed that reference. In that reference I also mention the site so you must check this site before you remove it. I hope you should not have to do this type of irrelevant thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saketkumar.sk (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Saketkumar.sk

Please see the edit summary on my revert: Category does not exist (see WP:REDNOT), unlinked see-also, etc.

Please see WP:CITE for how to add references properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your user talk page

Hi there BrownHairedGirl. I was reading your talk page today and I gotta tell you that on my laptop it doesn't look so good, as some of the elements at the top overlap one another. So I looked at the page on my phone, and the archive box completely covers the "BrownHairedGirl is a Misplaced Pages admin", to the point where the whole thing is non-functional. I've made a possible replacement in my sandbox - User:Diannaa/sandbox. Cheers, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa

Sorry it isn't working for you. It's fine on all my browsers (Opera, Chrome, Firefox and MS Edge), but I haven't tried it on a phone.

It was v kind of you to make a modified version, but unfortunately it breaks on my browsers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I am looking at it on an Acer Chromebook running chrome, and on an old Samsung phone. Ah well, food for thought anyway. Regards, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to say, it's not the browser that causes the issue; it's the width of the monitor. Try narrowing the width of the window in which you are viewing the page, and perhaps you will see how it looks for me. Also, clicking on the link at the bottom of the page that says "mobile view" and narrowing the window to about 3 inches wide will reproduce how it looks on a phone. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)